Yves Pallade: Only Non-Antisemites

In most discussions about antisemitism what is usually meant is conventional right-wing extremist hatred of Jews. Yet, inspired by the will to combat all manifestations of antisemitism, the OSCE has identified also other forms of Jew-hatred and respective groups of hate mongers.

As Professor Weisskirchen has rightly pointed out in an article a little while ago, “[w]e already have the tools in order to [implement the measures set out in the 2004 Berlin Declaration]. It is therefore time to make use of them more effectively.”1 One such tool is the Working Definition of Antisemitism, which has been endorsed both by the EUMC, ODIHR and the Personal Representative of the OSCE Chairman in Office on Combating Antisemitism. Since best practices are about sharing experience in using the existing tools, I would like hereinafter to introduce to you four individuals with strong connections to the academic field, whom one could use to exemplify the use of this Working Definition.

Since I am well-aware that the so-called “accusation of antisemitism” (Antisemitismusvorwurf) constitutes probably one of the most severe verdicts that one can pass on a human being, in particular on a German one – Eckart Jesse of the Hannah Arendt Institute in Dresden in his defence of Jürgen Möllemann at the time called it a “killer-argument” – and that it could moreover lead to unpleasant legal disputes of the kind that some of us in this room had to endure, I will refrain from presenting any antisemites to you today. Instead I will content myself with naming only non-antisemites, though academic ones to be sure.

Example no. 1: Ludwig Watzal

He works for the Federal Agency for Civic Education and also has a lectureship at the University of Bonn.

What positions does he represent?

In a piece on an Israeli media entrepreneur, entitled “Haim Saban, the media and Israel” that was broadcast by DeutschlandRadio Berlin2, Watzal sounded the following:

“The escapades of the so-called Holocaust industry are at any rate rather bizarre and an insult to the victims of National Socialist extermination policy. The actions of Saban have, however, nothing to do with conspiracy thinking, but they are evidence of how symbiotic the relationship between power and money is. Saban’s political desire is to obtain as much control as possible over the media. Peter Chernin, the president and head of the News Corporation, has made it clear that the Hollywood mogul has not become involved in Germany for purely financial considerations, but that he regards the country as the basis for something bigger.”3

According to our colleague Juliane Wetzel from the Center for the Study of Antisemitism at the Technical University Berlin, who commented on this radio piece at the time, “he [Watzal] activates the typical clichés of Jewish capital and Jewish power”. This perplexes me indeed: Wouldn’t it be presumptuous to qualify Watzal’s position as an antisemitic one, for he is after all an employee of Germany’s most important state institution for democratic education and moreover serves as one of the co-editors of Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, the academic supplement to the Bundestag’s own newspaper Das Parlament?

Example no 2: Norman Paech

He was formerly professor for Public Law at the University for Science and Politics in Hamburg.

Let’s listen to what he has to say.

In an open letter to the German-Jewish professor Micha Brumlik in the context of a public debate on a book by the Canadian philosopher Ted Honderich, whom Brumlik had criticized for legitimising terrorism4, Paech writes: “Has it occurred to you that such an executivistic censure of thought could give a fresh boost to antisemitism, which, after all, clearly exists in our society?” 5

Moreover, in an interview with the daily die tageszeitung6 on the occasion of the war in Lebanon last year Paech stated that Israel was waging “an illegal war of extermination against the militia and the population in Lebanon.7

I am trying hard to be convinced: Norman Paech could certainly not be antisemitic, for is he not currently Foreign Policy Spokesman of the parliamentary party of Die Linke in the Bundestag and moreover a member of the German delegation to the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly?

Example No. 3: Klaus Holz

He is a professor of sociology and head of the Lutheran Foundation for Advanced Studies in Villigst.

Together with two colleagues he wrote a lengthy piece for the weekly Jungle World in which he claimed that Israel’s then Prime Minister Sharon was aiming at the “destruction of Palestinian civil society”8 and that Palestinian terrorism was exclusively an act of desperation and a result to Israeli “state terrorism”9. Holz and his co-authors stop short of drawing a direct analogy between Israel and Nazi Germany, instead comparing Israel’s policies to those of South Africa under the apartheid regime, while leaving it to others to infuse the ‘nazification’ topos with a degree of legitimacy: The Israeli filmmaker Eyal Sivan is adduced, who had “declared that the comparison between Sharon and the Nazis was customary among Israeli pacifists…”.10 The authors go on to argue that looked at through the “Auschwitz screen”11 that is distorting the perception of contemporary left-wing defenders of Israel, “Jews are only a metonymical figure, in which the murdered of yesterday are superimposed on the oppressors of today”12 and that “the banalisation of the events in the occupied territories in the name of the remembrance of Auschwitz deserves our outrage”.13 They claim that the continuation of the occupation over decades could also “threaten the existence of the Palestinian population”.14 Moreover, Holz and his co-authors do not see a historical nexus between Nazi Germany and current Palestinian antisemitism – which they refer to as “anti-Zionism”.15

In his book “Die Gegenwart des Antisemitismus”16 Holz argues that “antisemitism among Muslim migrant groups” manifests itself “often only on the basis of their experience in the country of immigration. Its preconditions comprise their social, racist and religiously justified exclusion”.17

To me it appears yet again presumptuous to even think of the possibility that Klaus Holz could harbour some antisemitic notions or that he could even downplay contemporary antisemitism or possibly associate it with Jewish or non-Jewish behaviour, for he has meanwhile become one of the most noted German academic experts on antisemitism and was not so long ago asked to address an academic symposium on antisemitism that had been organized by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz).18

Example No. 4: Alfred Grosser

He is a sociologist and political scientist, who taught at Science Po in Paris and was Research and Studies Director at the French National Foundation of Political Science.

So what does he say?

In a 10-page article in the February 2007 issue of Germany’s most renowned foreign policy journal Internationale Politik19 Grosser expressed his non-understanding “that Jews nowadays despise others and claim the right to mercilessly pursue policies in the name of self-defence. Understanding for the suffering of others – does this basic value of Europe not hold all the more for Israel?”20

At a hearing on antisemitism here in the German Bundestag in 2004, similar to the one today, Grosser remarked the following:21

“It’s all about understanding the suffering of others. This understanding generally does not exist on the part of Jews.”22

And in an interview with the Berliner Zeitung23 he said:

“Criticism of Israel and antisemtism have nothing to do with each other. It is rather Israel’s policies that promote antisemitism globally.”24

Grosser – an antisemite? Isn’t this virtually inconceivable for he is not only a noted world-class academic and laureate of the Peace Price of German Book Trade but most importantly also a Jew or at least of Jewish descent – as he never gets tired to point out. Not to forget that he was invited as a guest expert to address a hearing at the Bundestag on no other issue than –antisemitism.

I would like to return to the Working Definition where I read about the following contemporary examples of antisemitism:

I quote from the definition:

“Making mendacious, dehumanising, demonising, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective – such as, especially but not exclusively the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.” Now I am fully confused, for doesn’t Ludwig Watzal’s portrayal of Haim Saban or Alfred Grosser’s characterization of Jews in general fall into this category?

I quote from the Definition:

“Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews” and “Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.” Maybe I am missing the point here, but is this not exactly what Alfred Grosser and Norman Paech are doing when blaming Israel, Jewish groups, individual Jews or even non-Jews for rising antisemitism? And isn’t Klaus Holz rationalising anti-Jewish hatred among Arab-Muslim immigrants when saying that it is a result of the discrimination suffered by them?

I quote again from the Definition:

“Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.” Is it my personal misperception that the term “war of extermination” that is used by Norman Paech to refer to Israeli demeanour is clearly linked to the kind of war conducted by the Nazis? Is it only my distorted impression that Klaus Holz – while not daring to draw a direct analogy between Israel und Nazi Germany – cites specifically an Israeli voice to provide such comparisons with discursive legitimacy?

I quote once more from the Definition:

“Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms … or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters during World War II …” Isn’t this actually what Klaus Holz does when he downplays the collaboration of the Arab national movement with Nazi Germany?

Now my question to you: Given that the aforementioned gentlemen cannot be antisemites due to their academic credentials, to their profession and to the particular group they belong to, what application can the current Working Definition still have? Is it really the case that the 56 participating states of the OSCE – after so many years of intensive discussion with the aim to clearly identify and to combat antisemitism – are so far off the track?

Well, during my time at the American Jewish Committee I was taught one important thing, namely that while there is antisemitism without Jews, there can be no antisemitism without antisemites.